Posted
by
Zonkon Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:42PM
from the patchity-patch dept.

HuckleCom tipped us to an article on the Dark Reading site, stating that plans are already in the works for the first Windows Vista service pack. The pack is slated for release sometime in late 2007, and will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues that may spring up between January and the pack's release date. Microsoft is already looking for volunteers to help them test it. According to the email sent to Technology Adoption Program members, in order to get in on the ground floor IT shops will have to 'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.' As the article observes, Microsoft may be asking for a lot from their customers. Candidate releases of XP service packs had extremely deleterious effects when initially rolled out. There is no firm word for when in the year this pack will be released.

Except it's nothing new; that's what the TAP programme [microsoft.com] is. I've been involved with the SQL 2005 TAP, where they supported a live rollout of the beta code for a large project; and throughout we had direct access to parts of the SQL team. TAP doesn't mean the software is thrown at you and you flounder with it, it's a carefully organised rollout and feedback process. We also did the same with BizTalk 2004, and MS ended up flying some of the BizTalk team over to help fix bugs at a customer site (of course the c

How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista? not much is my guess. Its more of a combover for people who dont want to get burned like they did with XP when it first released.

Its XP that really made people realize how horribly buggy software could be on release. How many corporate offices wont upgrade software to something untill after a particular period of proven reliabilty on the market now? My guess is quite a bit more since XP.

And how many of those set the requiremnt to be after X number of major upgrades? A Service Pack would qualify to most people as fairly major.

I would hope they fix some of the issues with vista.. although some are just plain UI inconsistencies.My pet hate being you can't put an icon in the taskbar for network devices any more, so you can't see visually whether you're locked onto wireless or wired (I switch between them a lot when moving around on the laptop). Disabling the wireless has gone from a right click to 3 dialogs and a UAC prompt.

There's also a process that keeps scanning the files on the disk. Not windows search (disabled that, as it

Regarding the harddrive usage, i've disabled windows defender, auto defragging, windows update and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference either. When you disabled indexing, did you disable _all_ of the directories? There's a modify screen that you can remove like 5 directories. After doing this, it cut the HD usage a great deal but every once in a while it'll spike up and just think to itself for a while... i've never figured it out.

So instead of fixing Windows' security model, or reworking the flawed NTFS filesystem, they patch 'em up and give the patches catchy names!

Windows Defender (and other anti-spyware products don't protext against "flaws" in the security model, they protect against flaws in the user.

The fragmentation issue is _vastly_ overblown and defragging has no impact for 99% of people. It's there to soothe people who have had years of magazines telling them to "defrag" (which followed on from years of the same - actually applicable - advice about FAT[32]).

"Defragging" is much like "fixing permissions" in recent versions of OS X - nothing more than a placebo almost every time it's applied.

Actually, there's a very simple reason for Microsoft to release a service pack in the second half of 2007. That happens to be the exact same phrase used to describe the release of Longhorn server. In case you didn't know, Longhorn client (Vista) and Longhorn server are built from the same codebase. Vista SP1 is primarily the result of an extra year of development to the common OS components, plus any client patches that didn't make it in time for RTM.

The point is that most of the work will have been done for the server release already. They may as well package up a new build of the client since it will inherit any improvements from the server.

How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista?

Vista went in to RTM in November, so releasing SP1 mid 2007 will leave at 6 to 8 months for bug fixes. Considering how long Vista was in development, and (more importantly) knowing Microsoft, you can assume that there was a lot of polishing that got pushed aside in a rush to just finally get the damn thing out and over with.

Additionally, since Longhorn Server is still under development - and releasing Beta 3 next month or so - the

Actually, I think that they are releasing the service pack so fast because they decided they were shipping what they had to businesses in November because certain software assurance contracts where up for renewal then. They spent a few months polishing up what they had and shipped it. Obviously, it wasn't in the kind of shape that they wanted it in, so the early SP should get it in to the shape they had hoped for at RTM without having to delay again.

When I first tried Vista, it was running in a VM and there were serious problems with the Minesweep implementation, actually: It was difficult to distinguish the zero tiles from unexplored tiles, and there was significant lag. It ran much better when I moved to actual hardware, but you wouldn't think that emulation would cause that big a performance hit for something like that.

The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.

And the exact reason even a "power user" like myself isn't even entertaining the idea of upgrading to Vista anytime soon. When I say "power user", I mean a consumer with above-average computer skills, but I'm not a professional. I fix friends PC's, but I don't build them. I can make just about any OS or program do what I want, but I don't write them. So my opinion comes from being a user w

You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.

You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.

I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into

Doesn't anyone actually wait to hear how well something performs? I mean, if Product_X is getting great reviews, and it's something I'll use, I'm not going to wait until Product_X v2 is released (assuming the upgrade is free later). Likewise, if Product_X is getting horrible reviews, I'm not going to pick up Product_X v2 the day it's released.

Windows is one of those products that people and businesses will migrate to regardless of horrible reviews, it's just a question of when. Businesses have been burned enough by bleeding edge software that they don't want the first version of any product, even those with great reviews. So, they'll think of migrating when the first update comes out, aka SP1. Presumably, most of the bugs will be worked out by then.

In this case, Microsoft seems to know the psychology of their customers and has taken action to get to that first update ASAP, regardless of whether that's enough time for all the bugs to work out. That means more money for MS, but likely a bad SP1.

However, in response to the great-gandparent, that's still an average of more than one service pack a year from the time Windows 2000 was launched worldwide [microsoft.com] on February 17, 2000 to the time the last service pack (4) was released.

Having started using vista, I'm thinking I'll be waiting until the next release of windows. I'm sure MS can fix much of this stuff, but the entire OS just feels like a train-wreck. Some like to equate this as the next evolutionary step in windows, but I'm thinking this feels a lot more like windows 95. I'll wait for the next "windows 98"

Vista was code complete in September/October 06. Release DVDs were in developer's hands in November. They are planning a service pack in 2H'07. How is this "quick" in anyone's mind? You're waiting almost a YEAR for fixes and patches that didn't make release code, and don't pretend that development on a system stops at release.

If Microsoft wasn't planning a service pack release, then you might be able to laugh at them. Laughing because

I'm more interested in the next WinXP SP, as there are currently some 80 patches needed after a clean install of XP SP2. Yeah, I know all about all the goodies that help streamline installing them, but they are only patches to something Microsoft ought to be doing.

If we're seeing a service pack for Vista this quickly, while XP SP3 has taken 2+ years to release... I'd say there's an 90% chance Microsoft releases another "security rollup package" for XP and calls it done. They did it before with Win2k - anyone remember SP5?

Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete. All this means is that anyone planning their upgrade schedule should really count the release of SP1 as if it were the initial release of Vista (ie. wait at least 6-12 months on from that point to allow issues to be resolved). Yet another reason not to switch to Vista in the forseeable future.

We all KNOW Vista is being rushed out incomplete. The problem really is twofold: that companies (and not just MicroSoft) rush out product before it is ready, requiring patches/etc, but for some unknown reason we all find the multitude of patches/etc acceptable.
In some ways, the "dark days" of computing (pre-fast-internet) were the golden years. Either a company released a fully working product, and it thrived, or they released garbage, and the companies died in the process.
Of course, there is no way that this process will change until we, the consumers, demand finished products at release. But somehow I dont think the sheeple out there will do that either.
No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses now, and the consumers don't seem to care.

Well that's one side of the coin. On the other side you've got other products that have been able to continue improving over the years and respond to changes in technology to extend their effective product lifetime - things that would otherwise have been provided as costly upgrades or "new versions" if it weren't for patching. Sometimes patches (and the fundamental expectation that they're free) can actually be a good way to get value for money from a product. Just not in this case.

"Patching" and "new features" (ie functionality) are totally different creatures.If you scrape your knee and "patch" it with a band-aid, you do not add any new functionality to your knee.

A patch by definition does not add functionality.

Patch1. A small piece of material affixed to another, larger piece to conceal, reinforce, or repair a worn area, hole, or tear.[...]8. Computer Science A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases.

Technically yes. But practically speaking any small change, update, addition, or fix will be referred to as a patch. And that's clearly what we're referring to here seeing as we're talking about service packs which do more than just fix bugs.

People are whining that Microsoft promised a major step forward, spent the better part of a decade in development, pushing back the ETA over and over again, and now after all that time they've produced something which has lost virtually all of the features that once made it interesting and somehow they still haven't finished the product properly. So you're asking if people are whining because it took too long or because they rushed it - both. It's far later than originally planned, far smaller in ambition than originally stated, and still unfinished. In other words people are whining because Microsoft haven't made good on any of the promises surrounding Vista (in all its guises) for the last half-dozen years.

I don't think anyone is surprised that they're releasing SP1 so soon. It's just disappointing that it's lived down to expectations.

I work in a small win32 shop and even we won't consider it for another couple of years.

The alternative my PHB is actually considering deploying 2003 server as a desktop. If you are used to thinking that Microsoft is very good stuff and find Vista generally bad, this kind of bizarre thinking takes hold. It is safe to assume that vista adoption is a forgone conclusion.

I make a decent wage babysitting Microsoft stuff. I specifically don't advocate any platform at work. That's my bosses decision. Though, if we switched to Linux I'm positive we'd do a whole lot less babysitting.

before everyone freaks out about a service pack, how often do new versions of Ubuntu or Fedora come out? Is there that much of a difference just because one OS calls it a service pack and one calls it a version?

We expect new versions of Ubuntu every 6 months. We don't expect the same of Microsoft (especially after the long XP to Vista upgrade time), so when they're so quick to patch, it's funny. Or something like that...

Release Early, Release Often is part of the core philosophy of Open Software (see C&B). It is how the model is designed to work naturally. Vista and all Windows versions before it do not have this model. If there is a release quickly after another, it is usually to fix a critical error. In this case, I am guessing SP1 will be used to add whatever didn't make marketing's 105th(?) deadline.

#1) It is a good thing MS is taking updates seriously and scheduling them on a faster scale, it will also help to offset any found vulnerbilities in Vista RTM.

#2) If MS said they were releasing one in 2 years, everyone here would be complaing that MS is slow, doesn't care about users or software quality. Catch 22 Slashdot issue uh?

#3) At least MS won't be CHARGING for this as they have never done with previous service packs, that have in the past offered many updates and new features to the OS. This is something the Apple fans cannot claim, as Apple trickles out only security updates, and then charges for a real service pack update. This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers? Also don't scream about all the new OSX features in each release, most are fixes or updates to the software included, or the famous spotlight, which MS also offers their desktop search for free to XP users.

So SP1 in the first year, good for MS for once, actually giving customers attention instead of internal infighting...

This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers?

People who use OSX like it and the Apple way of computing, and seek it out. People who use Windows do so because some other app they need requires it. Big difference.

except that whole SP1 in Apples terms = 10.4.# and not 10.# like Wintrolls like the think it does.

!0.5 is a major OS upgrade, not a service pack. Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art wh

I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

Your "Ruby" iMac is no older than 8 years (and, incidentally, isn't actually "supported" by OS X, even though it will probably install). The 266Mhz models were introduced in January, 1999 (and had 32M RAM standard). To say they "run OS X 10.4" is little more than sophistry.

Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, w

See here is the problem, people that study OS engineering and OS theory, even from the user functionality standpoint would argue that these are NOT major OS upgrades. Sure Apple tweaks stuff, adds in a few new features, but mainly updates the user client applications/functionality, which are not core OS issues.

So sure iPhoto gets new features, and you get desktop search, and you get time machine that was in Windows 2003, but as you note, MS releases updates to their versions of the

I support small businesses in Boston, and I'm telling all my customers to avoid vista-pre-installed pc's like the plague for the next year (2 if they can get away with it). They expect IT support people to put their reputation and jobs on the line by putting pre-release builds and risk their customers' entire business with it? Does microsoft seriously expect the rest of the IT world to go down with it?

So let me get this straight... Microsoft says they're going to release some patches to an operating system in about 5 or 6 months.

And what's wrong with that?

Would the community rather Microsoft not release any patches at all? Or not start working on them this early? Do you really think Microsoft is just going to give everyone a two-year vacation now that Vista has shipped? How responsible would that be?

Really 20%?! My Athalon 64 3200+ is using about 3% CPU for the search indexer background process (not usually indexing depending on how I set my power profiles depending on my current needs, I run it when actively using the machine and plugged into a wall outlet) and not much else. Turning off the search indexer has my task manager toggle between 0% and 2% (when taskmgr updates). Are there occasional spikes when the indexer *is* running and fetches a chunck of data, sure, but that's not idleing at 20%, that's a process processing.

Lots of random stuff making it up to between 5% and peaking at 10% (not really a problem.. XP would peak at around the same level).

I'm not fan of vista by any means but CPU usage isn't its problem. *disk* usage... well that's a whole different story - until I switched off windows search the disk light was permanently on (*not* good for a laptop on battery). Still has the occasional burst of reading random files (something in svchost) that I need to track down/kill.

I'm seeing about the same. I have approximately the same machine as you, except that I'm using an Athlon 3200+. Idle sits around 6% while i'm playing music, running Thunderbird (yes, I use it as my IMAP client at home), Windows Live Messenger, and IE7. Not too shabby. Vista's actually been far snappier for me than XP SP2 ever was. It's a nice experience all around.